Ugh. The abstract won't tell you every little detail about the study, but even in the abstract itself, it says this:

**So even though it says that 'some parts of it aren't attributed to the 'environment'', it also says that previous studies have shown that it's environmentally-affected too.**

***Moreover, that abstract says: "The limitations of the study are discussed and suggestions
for future research are offered."***

```and even if these ppl were maltreated , this is because the parrents have a gentic disposition
```

A 'genetic predisposition' does not lead to a phenotype necessarily developing towards a given trait.

Sounds similar to the MAGA gene

**For your claim of human behaviour being causally reducible to biological factors to be correct, you would have to attribute EVERY SINGLE CHANGE in society to biological factors including your own actions. You're not excluded from the world, you also have an effect.**

***But again, as soon as you try to make a model of yourself, that model becomes invalid since you cannot account for you making that model of yourself.***

**And it is much the same with society in general - as soon as we model ourselves, we are already in some way beyond that model of ourselves. Biological determinism, for that reason, is for all we care *wrong*.**

***So giving a specific case for whether or not biological factors have the most influence over a specific set of behaviours is NOT evidence for biological determinism, because your claim must apply to all possible human actions INCLUDING YOUR OWN.***

__It's why I said that I could pull out an infinite supply of studies and there would still not be sufficient evidence to claim that biological determinism is true.__

```Did i ever rule out nature? No i did not. 100% implication. This is what he does and you are just not smart enough to see it . 0/10 comprehension skills.```

***I never said that you ruled out 'nature'. I've actually said that THIS IS YOUR GOD!***

In the screenshot you posted, there is **absolutely no talk about you ruling out 'nature'**. I said that heritability doesn't rule out 'nurture' instead.

```Just because he randomly poast "sources" doesnt means that they substanciate what he says, which it doesnt
He is litterly denying heritability```

This is yet another lie of yours. I have never said that 'heritability' does not exist; I've instead clarified what it means.

**And the hypocrisy regarding this whole 'sources' business is gigantic considering that you brought up a great many of the sources which I've showed don't prove what you say.**

***Just because you post Beaver 2003 or any number of studies which show that there is a high degree of heritability for various traits does not mean that biological determinism is true, because you have to post an infinite number of studies.***

```>muh prison rates```

**Way to dodge the point again, because I could easily say that this is attributed to structural racism, black culture and so on. You could then say that these too are the results of genetic predispositions, but then I could bring up an infinite amount of other things which are not automatically linked to genetic predispositions, *and I could always include you in the picture too*.**

Are you not helping the very racists who would like to maintain this state of affairs, for example? Is *that* owed to your own genetic predispositions?

But anyway, let's bring up this study:

https://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/wealthraceincarcerationrates.pdf

Notice how *in your screenshot alone* it talks about those who *started off* with more wealth in 1985 and then looks at major incarcerations up to 2012.

What's said about those who *kept* that wealth? What's said about those who had access to ways of getting more wealth or at least keeping a stable position in terms of income?

But let's get to the really fun part: *the discussion*.

>Separating by race, we showed that blacks had lower odds of incarceration in the short term, in their early twenties to thirties, when they possessed more wealth. The odds of such incarceration for black males who possessed as little as $2000 in 1985 were only half the odds for black males who possessed very little or no wealth and collectively had an incarceration rate of 10 % in the next 5 years. For black females, possessing more wealth meant virtually eliminating incarceration chances in the short term.

>lack of black
male observations at the very high levels of net worth

Small sample size for that particular demographic - a statistician's nightmare.

>__Personal and family human capital levels such as education, job experience and social connections also may differ greatly among those with similar wealth levels.__ Therefore, observed racial differences in male incarceration rates despite similar wealth levels may be explained once those factors are taken into account.

>**The reasons for which respondents were incarcerated also may be salient, but were not available in the NLSY79 data.** These limitations invite further study through the collection and use of additional data sources, particularly for unpacking the economic impact of incarceration on the broader household as well as for studying the impact of disparate, and possibly racially relevant, reasons for incarceration.

***You can cry 'connect the dots between studies' as much as you want, since I know that's what you'll do, but not only do you fall into the infinite studies trap, but you also have to deal with what the authors of the studies themselves have to say about it!***

```"my study" Which study would that be?? i dont recall posting a study, and if i did it would not exclude the enviormental effects. This is nearly a biased assumtion, Yet another one on which you waste so much time typing all that non argumental text
```

***Now I know that you're grasping at straws.***

When I said 'your study', I was very clearly talking about Beaver 2003 - __the study that you brought up about how some genetic differences leads to African-Americans being violent__.

And there's the 'you said i excldeud enviromentla efects' straw man again.

No, I'm saying that not only is your focus glued to such effects, but you are pretending that we can't do anything about those effects in the first place because we would be destroying people and we're never gonna develop the technology to do it.